Benjamin Kirk writes:
> >> Switching is only one half of the problem, ther other part is
> >> maintenance. So, *assuming* that the the transition could be somehow
> >> done, would the developers be eager to maintain it?
> >
> > Speaking just for myself, "No", but that's okay because I'm not eager
> > to maintain the autoconf system either - I try to only add new
> > configure-time options or new dependencies when it's really necessary.
> > I think the people who deal with our build system the most are Ben and
> > Ondrej; I'd have no objections to changes if they didn't.
>
> My only experience with cmake was back in 2002 when I unpacked VTK and
> became instantly irritated that I had to install an additional package to
> even attempt building it. Although, judging by the headlines
> (http://lwn.net/Articles/188693) I'm guessing preinstalled cmake
> installations will become more commonplace.
It may, but we still don't have it installed by default in the CFDLab,
and we have a fair number (1589) of RPMs on the workstations these days.
It also isn't installed at our friendly neighborhood supercomputing center...
that would make it a definite "no-go" for me.
-J

>> Switching is only one half of the problem, ther other part is
>> maintenance. So, *assuming* that the the transition could be somehow
>> done, would the developers be eager to maintain it?
>
> Speaking just for myself, "No", but that's okay because I'm not eager
> to maintain the autoconf system either - I try to only add new
> configure-time options or new dependencies when it's really necessary.
> I think the people who deal with our build system the most are Ben and
> Ondrej; I'd have no objections to changes if they didn't.
My only experience with cmake was back in 2002 when I unpacked VTK and
became instantly irritated that I had to install an additional package to
even attempt building it. Although, judging by the headlines
(http://lwn.net/Articles/188693) I'm guessing preinstalled cmake
installations will become more commonplace.
I am not really partial to any build system. The autoconf we have now works,
but it is certainly not pretty. However, hardly any of the complexity is
there for cross-platform portability, rather it is there because of the
plethora of optional packages we support.
I echo Roy's comment, though. Rebuilding the build system is much lower on
my priority list than adding certain functionality to the library core, for
example. But then again that is probably because it works for me on all of
the Linux/OSX/AIX/IRIX platforms I tend to use.
Are you having any particular issues, or is the current system just
aesthetically irritating?
-Ben

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Ali - wrote:
> Switching is only one half of the problem, ther other part is
> maintenance. So, *assuming* that the the transition could be somehow
> done, would the developers be eager to maintain it?
Speaking just for myself, "No", but that's okay because I'm not eager
to maintain the autoconf system either - I try to only add new
configure-time options or new dependencies when it's really necessary.
I think the people who deal with our build system the most are Ben and
Ondrej; I'd have no objections to changes if they didn't.
---
Roy

>=20
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Ali - wrote:
>=20
> > i wonder if there is any plan for using cmake over autoconf as this
> > will make portability to other platforms much easier. Please reply
> > regarding the subject and do not start a flame war over the two make
> > systems!
>=20
> There's been some halfhearted interest in the past in using automake,
> but I don't think anyone's even mentioned cmake before. It looks like
> it might be an improvement to our build system, but unless someone
> like you is motivated enough to spearhead the transition, I wouldn't
> bet on any of the current developers finding the time to switch.
> ---
> Roy
Roy,
That's a shame! libmesh is nice and it would be nicer if it could be cmake-=
based.
Switching is only one half of the problem, ther other part is maintenance. =
So, *assuming* that the the transition could be somehow done, would the dev=
elopers be eager to maintain it?
_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx=

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Ali - wrote:
> i wonder if there is any plan for using cmake over autoconf as this
> will make portability to other platforms much easier. Please reply
> regarding the subject and do not start a flame war over the two make
> systems!
There's been some halfhearted interest in the past in using automake,
but I don't think anyone's even mentioned cmake before. It looks like
it might be an improvement to our build system, but unless someone
like you is motivated enough to spearhead the transition, I wouldn't
bet on any of the current developers finding the time to switch.
---
Roy

Hi,
i wonder if there is any plan for using cmake over autoconf as this will ma=
ke portability to other platforms much easier. Please reply regarding the s=
ubject and do not start a flame war over the two make systems!
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.=20
http://www.searchgamesbox.com=